Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Godrickwok (talk | contribs) at 11:48, 12 January 2005 (→Changed headings: forgot to sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Splitting this from the main article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, was a temporary practical measure needed to cope with the rapid rate of editing a very large article in the face of multiple edits per minute (with occasional vandalism sprees and reversions all happening simultaneously with legitimte new edits).

The split was done in accordance with a vote at Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and was supported by a number of people who had previously opposed such a split in an earlier vote.

Please do not unsplit (at least not for the time being) without a vote at the parent page talk page. If you are an admin, please help promptly block any vandals of this and the parent page.

-- Curps 08:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Countries that lost citizens travelling abroad

Perhaps this should be listed geographically rather than alphabetically, like the aid article. A summary table may be useful as well. --Joolz 10:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Countries directly affected

Seems odd to have countries that lost people, in the same table as countries where a 17cm "micro-tsunami" was detected by instruments. I think these would be better divided into two tables, "Countries directly affected", and "List of long-distance tsunami recording sites". There must have also been instrument detections of it in the Atlantic. - MPF 19:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it is off-putting. Your idea seems like a good one. BanyanTree 20:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you do it? - I'm not too hot on editing tables. A better idea for the header of the second bit would be useful too, maybe "Detection of the tsunami outside of the Indian Ocean". - MPF 20:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done, and I divided the "lost citizens" section into three parts so editors don't have to deal with a mass of table code. It looks a lot better, imo. BanyanTree 20:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Pacific was the only ocean with a tsunami detection system, so I would be surprised if there were readily available measurements made in the Atlantic. BanyanTree 20:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Macau

Is Macau's figure included in Portugal? There are two reported deaths and three missings from Macau, who hold Portuguese passport to travel, according to news.tom.com.

Sources

Could someone please post source(s) for the "Detection of the tsunami outside of the Indian Ocean" table. It's a fascinating table but would be more useful if the data sources were avaialble.

Thanks

Burma

Burma was directly affected, but the official sources aren't being believed by most. A quick Google search shows a death toll of 90 at the moment.

No TOC? why not?

Even though the article was basically structured into 2 parts, major/minor; a TOC is always good for navigating through long article. If I want to jump to the "lost people" section, I use the TOC. If there is "external links" or "see also", I also use TOC to jump. Removing the TOC is lost value, lost function, and lost readability. I suggest that we put it back there. --Godric 06:18, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

As an inspection of the history shows, I added NOTOC back on the 7th. At that point the article was written such that it had a header section that was several screen depths long, and the TOC came out in the middle of the article, off the first page of any conceivable browser window, and between otherwise connected information. Since then the article has been restructured into a more normal Misplaced Pages style, in which I agree not having a TOC is a loss. Whoever did that structure obviously did not notice my NOTOC, I have now removed it. -- Chris j wood 11:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --Godric 11:23, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Changed headings

I've changed some of the headings:

• 'Countries suffering minor casualties and damage' to 'Countries suffering some casualties and damage', on the grounds that categorising 10 dead as 'minor' is a value judgement that I'd prefer we didn't make.

• 'Countries suffering no direct casualties' to 'Countries suffering damage only' to reflect what that section is about; many other countries suffered no direct casualties.

-- Chris j wood 11:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fully agreed to your changes, since even one being killed should not be considered "minor" anymore. Besides that it being a value judgement we shouldn't make, it's also disrespectful to the deceased's family. --Godric 11:48, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)